-Why? Minimap is pretty much the only thing that can give players a global comprehension of the situation (and not of only the part of map they are playng in) if they do not have any crystal ball. This was this way also in ro1.
If Festung Europa has radar, minimap, whatever you wanna call it, consider the entire community here alienated. No one wants radar in a WWII realism game and pretty sure the line isn't very grey with this one. "Not nobody not no how."
-Objectives won't be the same for the opposing sides,
I very much like this idea. Just need to get the capturing right as attacking/defending will make less sense. However even if slightly different, it makes for an interesting concept.
If the map is filled with objectives (if we forget very extreme flanks) no matter where he is, he'll always be in some capzone.
Why even have cap zones? The more you have the less importance they will have and non-dramatic they'll be. Also if objectives are all over the place it'll end up being a bunch recaptures and a circle-jerk of a game.
Maybe the map could be divided into sectors and each sector given a set number of men/equipment/resources/armour. If the situation gets pretty badly the team could retreat from the sector instead of fighting to the last man and use the leftover reinforcements for the next sector.
This is basically dominiation, just masked with the idea that the map is divided into sectors and not special objective areas. I think the sector is a cool idea, but in practice will just create confusion and not create a team cohesion or common goal for the team.
With Festung Europa, levels are likely to be designed with historical location in mind and therefore you will likely have vast changes between levels. Each level will need special setup for it to work well. This means you need a powerful and flexible objective and spawning system that can handle specific things that each level will need. Otherwise, you will need to design each level to work well with a standardized system, which can be easier once you have a good game flow that players like. It is a trade off for sure.
Will not work on some level designs
Easier overall and to predict flow of level
Spawn and boundaries easier to setup and get right (prediction)
General success across all levels (that have reasonable visuals/design)
Player experience will transfer level to level
Must play well and changed to "work" for as many level designs as possible
Players will begin to desire flexible and unique levels
Supports any level design (historical)
Harder because each level is different and requires more testing and updates (harder to predict)
Spawns and boundaries very difficult to get just right
Some levels will likely end up failing continually (regardless of # of updates)
Has steeper learning curve between levels
Can be modified in each level to work a bit better
Will likely lead to a standardized system as players
decide what they like best
Personally, I would prefer a standardized setup with levels designed for the game play, but that would require all level locations to be fictional and to have a good game play. As time goes on, a more flexible system can be implemented that would allow much harder and bizarre historical areas to be leveled. This is likely against FE's design. RO/DH has a mixture of flexible and standardization and this is a testament to its age and content.
You cannot really discuss objectives and objective zones without discussing boundaries and a spawning system. Objectives and spawning are truly the essence of game flow. Now you cannot discuss spawning and boundaries without talking game type. I think the most successful game type in Darkest Hour is Push maps. The domination type of Lutremange is also successful, but I feel it is not strong enough to have as a standardized system. In addition, there are many technical issues with large open maps, which have no network cuts. You cannot have a push scenario with a large open map. Bridgehead is open and push type, but it has its bottlenecks that helped in its game flow. Even still, Bridgehead has its problems because of its openness. The RO minefield boundaries would have helped with the issues, but for some unknown reason I was unable to add them (editor would get super glitchy). I am going to assume Push will be the chosen game type then.
Boundaries are imo very important and something that was not well supported with RO. With proper, more powerful and respectful boundaries, I think game flow would be easier to perfect. Why are boundaries so important? Because they prevent spawn camping. A realistic WWII shooter cannot really get away with spawn rooms like in Planetside 2, so you need a way to prevent (even accidental) spawn killing. Boundaries need to be forgiving, but also effectively do their job. Forgiving meaning they do not just immediately slay the player or suddenly stop them from moving. A system that supports boundaries per spawn or objective would be very useful. Let's say you have tanks unlock after so many players are on a server, you could also then widen the boundaries of the level to allow for tanks on the outskirts.
Spawning in a push scenario is difficult because of range. You need cover, not just concealment, and not just small cover, but cover that offers the recently spawned to approach their objective in various directions before encountering enemy fire. Giving players a choice where to spawn, even in slight changes (widening the spawns) will actually help a team. Maps that just have one spawn location per team suffer from extreme casualties for the attackers.
Objectives and zones. The RO objectives are actually flexible and relatively powerful. They support number of players = capture power, radius or volume based zoning, and recapture. The recapture could be better, better designed to support counter-attacking.
The only thing I have additional to offer for objectives is a "control point". A control point is not an objective, but a step towards an objective. The purpose of a control point is to have an intermediate stage in the process of taking an objective. It is something to tack in, if an objective is too hard to capture or is predicted to be needed in taking the objective. The control point works by being an area of cover outside the capture area of an objective. Control points should have 360 cover if possible (cover from all angles to avoid enemy fire & mortars), goal is to make it so you never see an enemy spawn. If an attacking team captures a control point, they can have infantry spawn at that control point as long as no enemies are within a given radius. If an enemy gets in the radius, the spawn is disabled. Control point spawns should be considered dangerous, like a deploy vehicle, you can be killed quickly after spawning. Control points have a spawn restriction, which only occurs if teammates die in the radius of it. The more teammates that die, the more the restriction sets in; eventually making it so only a few spawns a minute can be done. Why do this? Well if a team is being slaughtered leaving the control point, it will force a team to use the normal spawn points, instead of allowing the slaughter to continue. In addition, once the objective is captured all attached control points are also captured (forcing the enemy to recapture one to counter-attack, if that is viable). These control points could also be useful for domination game type and should support flanks, etc. In my original imagining of the control point, I envisioned three points around an objective, if one control point was taken; the defending team could no longer spawn at the objective and was forced to spawn at the remaining control points. I think if you cleaned up the specifics, control points could be a positive addition to game flow.